Laserfiche WebLink
OLD BUSINESS: (continued) : <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Siegel and <br /> passed unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution #66-89 <br /> declaring the need for conservation of water and recommending a 25% <br /> reduction in the use of water and including a newsletter article and <br /> handout on the eight principles of water conservation. <br /> 2. Request from Councilmember Penny Lave for comments on the <br /> conceptual outline regarding consolidation of Santa Clara County <br /> Cities Organizations <br /> Tryon reported that she had not been notified of the meeting at which <br /> this conceptual outline had been agreed upon. She also noted that this <br /> was a major change affecting the organizations in the County and she <br /> believed it required more consideration. The financial expenditures <br /> related to this issue should also be given serious thought. <br /> PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Tryon would draft a letter to Councilmember Lave <br /> expressing the concerns and comments of the Council. <br /> H. NEW BUSINESS: <br /> 1. Consideration of validity of variance, Lot #1, Tract #2043 <br /> filw1r. Jacobson, applicant, explained that he had purchased the property <br /> in 1958 and at that time obtained a variance for a reduction in the <br /> setbacks. At that time a discussion was held regarding the siting of <br /> the house on the lot which was rather narrow and the variance was <br /> granted to allow the siting of the house in what was thought to be the <br /> best location for that particular lot. At this time Mr. Jacobson' s <br /> contractor, Mr. Malek, was asking for confirmation of the validity of <br /> this variance as it directly affected the design and placement of the <br /> proposed home. <br /> Abbie Ahrens, representing Mr. Malek, noted that the lot was a <br /> difficult one on which to build. She supported the validity of the <br /> variance noting that the Planning Commission in 1958 had given careful <br /> thought to the best placement for the house with the reduction in <br /> setbacks. Ms. Ahrens also noted that it was her understanding that Mr. <br /> Malek was not planning on requesting any further variances for this <br /> lot. <br /> Council discussed whether or not there was a stated policy regarding <br /> the length of time a granted variance was valid. It was suggested that <br /> if it was not clearly stated, it would be unfair to the applicant to <br /> inform him that such an action now had no validity. On the other hand, <br /> Siegel stated that in his opinion thirty years was clearly too long a <br /> period of time to not proceed with a project and to assume that all <br /> permits , etc. would remain in place forever. Council also discussed <br /> ( she difficulty of building on the particular lot under discussion. <br /> V <br /> _4_ 5/17/89 <br />